Back
K. MURALI SHANKAR
Meyammai Achi – Appellant
Versus
S. Chidambaram – Respondent
ORDER :
K. Murali Shankar, J.
1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2018 made in E.P. No.73 of 2014 in O.S. No.384 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kodaikanal.
2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 5 are the defendants 2 to 5. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff, by alleging that the first defendant was his legally wedded wife and that he purchased the suit property with his funds, but in the name of his wife-first defendant, has filed the suit in O.S. No.384 of 2010 against the first defendant and other defendants claiming declaration that the sale deed dated 01.02.1996 registered as Document No. 187/1996 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office (SRO), Kodaikanal, as null and void and for directing the defendants 3 to 5-Registration Department Officials to make necessary entries in their books stating that the sale deed dated 01.02.1996 is null and void and to cancel the same in consequence of the declaratory relief and for directing the second defendant to
The court emphasized that in ex parte cases, the plaintiff must prove their claims, and the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions Act favors the spouse unless rebutted.
The burden of proving a benami transaction rests on the party asserting the plea, and the defendants failed to discharge this burden.
Claims of property ownership must be substantiated with credible evidence, as allegations of trust do not override the Benami Transactions Act without proof of fraud.
The burden of proof in claiming a property as a benami lies on the person alleging it, and presumption favors the name holder unless proven otherwise.
A benami transaction to a married daughter does not qualify for exemption under Section 3(2)(a) of the Old Act, rendering the plaintiffs' suit barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act.
Benami Transaction – One who alleges that a property is benami and is held, nominally, on behalf of real owner, has to displace initial burden of proving that fact.
Ownership claims under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act require clear documentary evidence; failure to provide such proof leads to dismissal of claims.
A plaintiff claiming a benami transaction bears the burden of proof, and the absence of credible evidence can lead to dismissal of the claim.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
